A special prosecutor will be 6 months investigating (minimum) before she starts calling people before a grand jury, There wouldn't be any indictments issued before the 2010 elections. And all Republicans (and some Democrats) will oppose every step in the "Obama Agenda" in any case. And besides, what is the "Obama Agenda?" Heath care reform with/without a public option? A very weak cap and trade? Transparency, DADT, other gay rights issues, and replacement of the politically-appointed Federal attorneys all seem to be off the table. You can make the Republicans REALLY, REALLY, angry, and still preserve the state secrets privilege, keep DADT, keep DOMA, and keep as many Bush appointees as you want.

I can understand that it may be politically advantageous to use this method. Figure out the support and the GOP responses so you can be better prepared to roll it out officially.

I wrote a comment of support at the Newsweek site. I plan to call the WH and DOJ tomorrow.

The domestic enemies are the hardest to defeat - from fear of the repercussions. That's why they are the ones that have brought so many countries down from within.

One comment that echoed my feelings perfectly was regarding the CIA lying to the small group of Congressional representatives briefed on classified programs. They are the proxies for the American citizens. They are the ones who had better stand up and expose what is done in OUR NAMES that is not legal, not in line with our treaties nor what we preach to other countries. If the CIA is lying to our proxies, maybe it is time to restructure all the agencies that Amy Zegart argues were "Flawed by Design [The Evolution of the CIA, JCS, and NSC]" from the start. Beginning with a coup at the CIA ?

YES, an Independent Prosecutor, AG Holder. (Wouldn't August recess work? True the DC crowd will be home facing the constituents on health care reform and we don't want to detract from it. I'm thinking the majority will be tied up with that and their own vacations.)

There's a lot of people who will have Holder's back and Obama's. We need to be sure they know that.

ad-noto, I'd also like to point out that among many negatives that you see, from the point of view of most brown and black skinned people and of women, the 2008 elections broke many glass ceilings. You see bad going to worse, for the rest of us, it is a mixed result. Would I rather be a brown-skinned adult in the USA of 1960 or the USA of today? The answer is obvious - today!

Your's and heru-ur's inability to see that is one reason why I suspect that you suffer from a form of racism.

I am speaking of class and the disparity created by economic inequality and the two-tiered system of justice. Fundamental issues of a free society that affect us all. You know like habeas corpus rights and preventive detention (who suggested that btw?). You bring up race and claim that you are better off. Because people of color can drink at the white water fountain now and have a black president? What about, if the government, headed by that black president, decides you are a potential threat? You could be imprisoned without recourse. But America is headed in the correct direction right?

How about our brown skinned cousins in Iraq and Afghanistan? Or those Pakistani's who have been droned to death by His Blackness? Can't blame that all on Whitey Bush now can we? Are they better off? How about the Persian brotha's? I mean, now that Obama has said they only have a few more months to agree to their subservience or else? But you are better off, America is on an upward swing and Obama is just keepin' it real for his peeps! Yes, as a matter of fact he is... except his peeps aren't who you think they are.

You aren't better off. None of us are.

As for calling me a racist when it is you who is brings race into the mix... you can play that card if you like. It is disgusting, offensive and untrue of course but you do what you gotta to sooth that ache.

One's Agenda is to a technocrat as a Quest is to a knight-errant. So it is not surprising that Advancing His Agenda is Obama's raison d’être.

I confess a bias: I don't care for raisons in my d’être, although I can take them or leave them in breads and puddings.

That said, I discern a further manipulative thread, or hook, in the tangled Obama skein: an implication that to the extent We the People require his maladministration to rigorously confront and rectify the thorny issues of torture and other government wrongdoing, it will be Our fault if his Agenda suffers.

Because it's a Moving Forward® Agenda, chock-full of constructive guns and butter, with a dash of green like a sprig of parsley on a plate. And it's essentially a two-term Agenda.

Thus the condescending vibe that in my view equates to telling the public: some of you think we need to wade into various cesspools of contentiousness, but trust us-- it's not a good idea. Monarch knows best.

And if you won't take "no" for an answer, you're as much as jerking my Agenda right out from under me, and nobody's a winner! Do you really want that on your consciences?

Equally obvious is that an individual or group's efficacy using the law as a tool for accountability or change is a function of money.

Spoken like a true indoctrinated capitalist. Man this pisses me off.

The law has always served the interests of political/economic elites better than other groups and will continue to do so unless average citizens are willing to fund endeavors like the ACLU, EFF, and NLG . . . to counterbalance the public's interests. But that's a tough sell to most folks.

The law will always serve their interests until we take the money out of the scheme/system. Pouring more money into it!? Average citizens money? That is your answer? Seriously rrheard! Come on now. It's more than a god-damned tough sell. It is freaking impossible! Average citizens' money won't ever compete with the corporate/MIC complex. The ACLU, EFF etc. are great but they are not the answer. We should have to spend money to get back our inalienable rights? To stop our government from creating a full-blown surveillance/police state? We should have to spend money to get them to stop torturing or to reveal torture and prosecute those who wage illegal wars??

**By the way I wasn't offering "student loans and mortgages" as a "legitimate" excuse why lawyers and judges will never "rise up" and demand change--I think lawyers in this country still believe in using the legal processes available, (no matter how excrutiatingly slow they may be) and that those processes haven't yet been exhausted. -- rrheard

Slow? Haven't been exhausted? I know that you lawyers still believe in the legal process. I realize that. Have you ever considered that that dedication to the rule of law and the legal process in this current climate is part of the problem?? I asked you the following a few months back and never received a response. I am going to ask again (and I am going to keep asking until it shakes something loose).

Is the rule-of-law basically dead and are we the subjects of a two-tiered system of justice or not?

If the answer is yes, then what good does it do to work within that system to bring about change or achieve justice? How is it even effin possible? Do you see what I am getting at? Why should I, a non lawyer, have faith in and put my efforts and money toward fighting legal battles on establishment terms with establishment rules? Glenn Greenwald has demonstrated that it is a rigged game. The law it was they say it is. How is fighting it out with law"makers" in courts of "law" (their turf!) possibly the answer at this point??

Dude. Honestly.